Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

ii) 2007(217)ELT.561(Tri.Mum)  Sunder Brothers The Sr Advocate further relied upon the following decisions regarding non-applicability of extended period of time limitation.
i) 2006(197)ELT.555 (Tri Mumbai)  Rivva Textiles Inds. Ltd
ii) 2006(195)ELT.90 (Tri Bang)  Lovely Food Industries
iii) 2009(238)ELT.125 (Tri Ahd)  R A Shaikh Paper Mills Pvt Ltd
iv) 2009(238)ELT.21 (SC)  Kushal Fertilizer P Ltd
v) 2011(264)ELT.555 (Tri Mumbai)  Orissa Bridge and Construction Corpn Ltd It is his submission that the case of clasdestine removal cannot be upheld merely on the basis of unsigned documents and the documents found from third party etc. or uncorroborated statement unless there is tangible, independent, proof like financial flow back, actual manufacture and clearance, excess purchase of raw material, electricity consumption, statements of workers, actual transportation of goods, statement of purchasers. That as per basic Rule of Evidence, unsigned copies of documents or documents recovered from third party cannot be considered as evidence at all. Learned Senior Advocate also argued that the case against the appellant is not proved; therefore there is no question of imposing penalty on the appellants.